Battlestar Galactica spinoff in the making

Word out is that there's a new BSG television series in the works, which means FFG's game will likely lift in price higher than its current absurdity. This will be a completely new show, but I'd think FFG wishes they could still print to it.

The secret winner here is Ares Games, which holds a license that it uses for its space combat game (which is quite good by the way). Presumably the new series will have people shooting at each other in some way or another.

Alas, the show is due to run on "Peacock" which is NBC's paywall. I'll be waiting for the entire 1st season to be released and then will binge it on a 30 day free trial.

Most reports are saying it’s a reboot, because it’s 2019, so if that’s the case, everyone loses here. It will be on NBC’s streaming service, so hopefully nobody sees it.

The article I read said it's not a reboot, instead a different story in the setting. Could be interesting.

Sagrilarus wrote: The article I read said it's not a reboot, instead a different story in the setting. Could be interesting.

That is my understanding as well.

The wave of the future on TV seems to be all the interesting IP shows ( Star Wars, Star Trek ) will be on that networks premium streaming service . All those years of customers wanting a la carte TV pricing well now they've got it....and now of course they're not happy.

Msample wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: The article I read said it's not a reboot, instead a different story in the setting. Could be interesting.

That is my understanding as well.

The wave of the future on TV seems to be all the interesting IP shows ( Star Wars, Star Trek ) will be on that networks premium streaming service . All those years of customers wanting a la carte TV pricing well now they've got it....and now of course they're not happy.

Of course not. It is going to be much more expensive than cable ever was.

I honestly can’t see myself paying yet another monthly subscription to see a single show. I wonder how it will work out for these networks that think they can tap the gold mine. I am thinking they will eventually return to licensing to Netflix or Amazon, or Disney will just buy them up.

If someone asks if I’ll watch X series that I can’t view on bluray, Netflix, Amazon or HBO, the answer is no. I’m not interested in any more subscriptions, except perhaps Disney.

I’m still not paying anywhere near as much as I would for multiple services than I would be for cable, my problem is that the show is happening and that it’s by the Mr. Robot creator (Mr. Robot did *nothing* for me).

So it’s a new story in the same universe, why not shift things around a bit and just let it be a completely new thing? Why do we need to do it with this idiotic idea that it needs to be done with the promise of a built in audience? Most BSG fans likely don’t want this, I sure as hell don’t, but I’ll tell you what I would like is SOME NEW SHIT. We’re never gonna get it if there’s enough people who watch this crap.

Josh Look wrote: Why do we need to do it with this idiotic idea that it needs to be done with the promise of a built in audience?

Because money talks?

I largely agree, but Hollywood is not a very artistic place, at least not as a first priority.

I pay for Hulu, and the Disney service appears to offer a plan that includes Hulu. If that's the case I may go for it.

I have two major cities in antenna reach, so these services for broadcasted channels don't mean much to me.

I love Mr. Robot so I'm stoked for this.

After the fiasco of seasons three and four, I have zero interest in any more Battlestar Galactica. The only way I might reconsider my stance is if I heard multiple positive reviews from people that share my taste in entertainment.

I thought BSG seasons 3 & 4 were great and also think Mr Robot is a great story so I'll be giving it a chance, dependent on what medium it arrives on across the pond. I, too, do not subscribe to every new content provider just because they have a great sounding new release and if need be will just get the season box later on.

I was at $152 per month for 75Mbps and cable TV with no sports channels. I'm now at $40 for 100Mbps. So I have plenty leftover even if I buy all of these subscriber services.. But, why the heck would I? I certainly don't need all of them simultaneously.

I think people asking for a-la carte cable options were looking for The History Channel, or Discovery Channel or SyFy. Instead the networks are moving content behind paywalls that would have been free to watch ad-revenue options previously. Make no mistake -- nobody is offering what people asked for, except HBO which was an a-la carte channel all along.

These services are going to find that people will subscribe for three months at a time.

I think you're way overestimating the ability of people to cancel revolving charges on their credit cards. Which is what these services are counting on.

I use PayPal whenever possible and don't leave a credit card in it. Each automatic monthly payment bounces to me via email for manual payment.

My statement in no way related to your own proclivities, I'm just saying generally on aggregate the secret of subscription services is people forgetting to cancel and not assessing and reassessing their usage on a running basis. I myself am doing this right now with google play music.

Companies have become extremely smart in understanding the microeconomic evidence on bounded rationality among humans.

Yeah, we kinda cut the cord recently, giving up Comcast, 90% of which we didn't watch. I had kept it running for one thing: live sports, specifically Liverpool. But I discovered that I could get cheaper Internet service (Comcast overcharges you if you only pick one of their services) from AT&T and then use YoutubeTV for sports. The latter is $50 a month and (Google being Google) has glommed onto the above-referenced reason that a significant number of people still have cable: sports. They have about 50 or 60 channels (typical mainstream cable fare, like SyFy and AMC), but have almost every sports channel out there (ESPN's whole suite, Fox's, NBC's) so I can see LFC whenever they're playing and there's no equipment involved (the "DVR" is just you telling Youtube what to record whenever it's on.) Plus, a cool feature of it is, in typical Google fashion, it pays attention to what you watch, so when you start the app, it will offer things that it thinks you might like. A couple months ago, Juventus was playing a pre-season that I didn't even know about, but it pitched it to me because it knows I watch a lot of football.

The total of AT&T and YoutubeTV is less than half what I was paying Comcast. We do still have Netflix, too, which is another $8 a month, and the Internet service is a bit slower, but I'm not gaming regularly anymore, so it doesn't really matter.